W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

RE: background-transform (Was: Re: [css3-images] Repeating oblique gradients)

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 01:32:37 +0000
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2A5B2543@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I'm not arguing with the value of transforming background images.
It's missing and is worth doing, of course.

I question whether we only want to do so by adding another set of
synonyms for the transform properties. Or are we also going to 
add border-transform for border images ? cursor-transform ?

Alternatively, Image Values could allow authors to name a 
combination of image URL/gradient, transforms, opacity...and 
then use this image definition in other places like 
background-image, border-image and any feature that supports
image values.

I don't mind proposing a syntax but as it seems obvious - to me
at least - I assume it has been considered before. I'm mostly
curious as to why we're not considering this. Or why not now ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rik Cabanier [mailto:cabanier@adobe.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 4:51 PM
> To: Sylvain Galineau; Tab Atkins Jr.; Simon Fraser
> Cc: Leif Arne Storset; Brad Kemper; www-style list
> Subject: RE: background-transform (Was: Re: [css3-images] Repeating
> oblique gradients)
> 
> But you can already apply a transform to an image element just like you
> do to a div element.
> With background-transform you could transform the background of an
> element but not the element itself. This is not something that can be
> done today...
> 
> Rik
> 
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 01:33:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT